This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

The road to Washington runs through Mexico

By Robert A. Pastor

Sun., Jan. 22, 2012

Throughout history, great powers have sought to impose their will on weaker nations by dividing them. Weaker nations have sought alliances to balance the power of the strong. It is therefore puzzling that Canada should pursue a “divide-and-be-conquered” strategy to the United States. Instead of collaborating with Mexico to persuade the United States to address shared problems and opportunities in North America, Canada has excluded Mexico and approached the U.S. on its own.

In a sense, Canada is the father of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the foundation on which a continental economy is struggling to emerge. When Mexico sought a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1990, Canada asked to join to defend the Canada-U.S. agreement. The U.S. and Mexico agreed, and the result was NAFTA, but since then, Canada has been a deadbeat dad, abandoning its offspring, stiff-arming Mexico and rejecting every North American initiative.

Prime Minsiter Stephen Harper with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and U.S. President Barack Obama at the 2009 North American leaders summit in Mexico. (Aug. 10, 2009) (JEWEL SAMAD / AFP)

Jim Kolbe, a former Republican congressman, proposed a North American parliamentary committee, but his Canadian counterparts opposed the idea. Canada was invited to join the North American Development Bank by Mexico, but it declined. Soon after the 9/11 attack, Mexico’s foreign minister proposed a North American “smart border” agreement, but Canada wanted to do it alone. Mexico duplicated the exercise, but two separate agreements did not make the border smart. Canada does not include Mexico on its priority list of 10 foreign aid countries, and it changed its visa policy to Mexico in an insulting way.

Canada has the reputation of a multilateralist, except in the one region that matters most — North America. Why? Some suggest Canadians fear being tainted by association with Mexico’s violence. Others believe its “special relationship” with the United States gives it an advantage that it would lose if it allied with Mexico. And some think that two countries can walk faster than three.

If so, how long did it take for Washington to reach a softwood lumber agreement, and is it fair or durable? Working by itself, Canada failed on national labelling, and while it was able to modify the “Buy American” procurement provision of Obama’s first jobs bill after a year of lobbying, Obama reintroduced it last summer. Then, last week, Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline.

Article Continued Below

Some might see the two U.S.-Canadian “action plans” on the border and on regulations announced in December as proof of the practical benefit of bilateralism, but the plans are actually a checklist of year-long studies. Moreover, the border plan doesn’t mention the most critical infrastructure project — a second Windsor bridge. The other U.S. border plan with Mexico — issued one week later — did identify specific projects.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s insistence on bilateralism — or rather “dual-bilateralism” because the U.S. has to deal with Mexico too — has not worked. Regulations will not be harmonized; a uniform set of customs forms and traveller IDs will not be implemented; a continent-wide transportation and infrastructure plan will not be contemplated without a clear vision and strategy by and for North America.

Working the U.S. Congress by itself, neither Canada nor Mexico can secure its goals. Working together, with the support of the Obama administration, the three governments could design a seamless market and eliminate an expensive, inefficient tax based on “rules of origin.” It could then use revenues from a common external tariff to invest in a North American Infrastructure Fund to narrow the income gap separating Mexico from its northern neighbours. Such a strategy could lift our economies and inspire our peoples.

Instead of competing against each other to gain access to Asian markets, our three countries should focus on continental competitiveness and approach China together on issues related to currency, unfair trade practices and climate change.

Canada could be central to this enterprise if it realizes that the best path to Washington is through Mexico City. Ottawa has difficulty getting Washington’s attention because the U.S. only has time for crises — one of which is drug-related violence in Mexico — or constituents. By 2015, more Mexicans will be living in the United States than Canadians in Canada. This formidable group — with 32 Hispanic members of Congress — has not adopted North American issues, but it could if Canada joined Mexico and engaged them.

If Canada were to change its “divide-and-be-conquered” strategy to a “unite-and-govern together” approach on the new North American agenda, Mexico and the U.S. would join, as they did with NAFTA. And Canada could achieve its goals and the continent’s at the same time.

Robert A. Pastor is professor and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and the author of The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future. He will be speaking at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo on Jan. 27.

More from The Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com